Random Today 12:34 pm JST
At the time she jumped into the taxi, was the guy breaking any laws? If someone jumps into my taxi I’m going to shove them out...male or female.
Are you really this dumb, or are you just playing dumb because you are grasping like hell for a way, any way at all, to make this look like the woman was in the wrong for confronting a stalker?
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Mark Apr. 17 08:03 pm JST
She is the one that should have been arrested.
Jonathan PrinToday 12:16 am JST
She is the one to have invaded privacy space.
If she felt danger because followed, call police, do not play the police.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Nagoya ChrisToday 11:17 am JST
What about allowing a sovereign nation to uphold its own traditional values?
Cultural relativism has its limits, and even the UN notes this:
I think it is safe to say that child marriage, or any kind of forced marriage that overrides the consent of either or both parties, is immoral. Consent of a person who is able to give consent (i.e., not a child) is key.
4 ( +7 / -3 )
bob Today 09:08 am JST
Translation: "STOP fighting my cancerous ideology. Just surrender."
Nope. Not me. On the contrary, more people need to speak up and dismiss this BS from a small but very noisy minority of bullies.
I hate to tell you this, bob, but bigots are actually in the minority. That's why the fight for equality is succeeding, albeit slowly.
I also hate to tell you that you have the definition of "bully" wrong here. A bully is someone who tries to hurt people who are weaker than they are. And it's not the bigots who are being hurt here.
We are simply not allowing the bigots to harm others. So in reality, we are protecting LGBTQIA from the bigots. In other words, the bigots are the bullies.
You have the choice to be kind, compassionate, understanding, and tolerant. If I were you, I'd make an active decision to take that path instead of taking the path of hate and intolerance.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
bass4funkToday 09:48 am JST
I always have, that’s kind of a no brainer, but at the same time no you’re saying if I scratch My twigs and berries in front of women, tell sexist and rude jokes, get drunk and punch them like a guy for whatever reason it’s ok? You’re basically saying, on every level I should treat women like men? That means, we can throw out all sexual violence towards women out of window as well as alimony? Seems fine with me.
Alternatively, you could treat all your friends in the way you treat your female friends. You could hold doors for them, refrain from touching your privates in front of them, stifle your burps and farts, not tell sexist jokes ...
You actually have a plethora of choices.
But it's a bit shocking to me to hear that you get drunk and punch your guy friends. That makes me wonder how many friends you actually have.
That means, we can throw out all sexual violence towards women out of window as well as alimony? Seems fine with me.
I would hope that you already refrain from sexual violence.
As a feminist, I've always personally been against alimony.
Why? Why do they get that privilege if we are supposed to be all the same?
Treating everyone the same actually means not giving special privileges to anyone. Which would mean that cisgender people don't get special consideration while the needs of others are neglected or ignored.
Did you also get upset when the facilities to accomodate the special needs of people with impaired vision, or people who are disabled, began to be built? Did you call it "special privileges" when wheelchair users got their own bathrooms? Just curious.
2 ( +7 / -5 )
Unfortunately, I know a few people whose same-sex spouse was not allowed into Japan under this exemption. It doesn't seem to be applied evenly, and whether the application is accepted seemingly depends on how whoever reviews it interprets the rule. What Japan needs is a real equal rights law, allowing same-sex marriage. It's criminal to keep married people, or even couples who aren't married, apart out of some discriminatory notion that same-sex partnerships aren't equal to opposite-sex ones.
8 ( +15 / -7 )
Burning BushToday 03:57 pm J
That should apply to the 0.000000001% of people who for some reason are offended by "Gentlemen and Ladies" not to the 99.9999999% of people who aren't.
Being happy to feel included is not the same as feeling offended.
I believe it was you that you were offended.
-2 ( +6 / -8 )
Burning BushToday 01:52 pm JS
Some women actually still appreciate that, especially if the door is heavy.
Good for them.
You don't speak for all women.
never ever once said or even implied I did.
what I did say is that men should feel free to treat women the same as they rest other men; that there’s no reason to feel pressured to conform to outdated sexist stereotypes..... unless you want to.
-1 ( +7 / -8 )
bass4funkToday 12:00 pm JST
...if Disneyland wants to get rid of gender titles, there choice then that means in the company of woman I never have to hold open the door again, I can belch talk as rude as I want and treat women the exact same way I treat my male friends, really? That’s less stress for me, I can be myself, I just don’t want to hear any complaints from any woman! Let’s abandon all pronouns, be genderless and faceless etc.
Yes. You should be treating your female friends in exactly the same way as you treat your male friends. You don't need to hold doors and let women go first. But belch talking and being rude? Those are male traits? Okay, you said it; I didn't.
And allowing some space in society for non-binary folks doesn't mean everyone has to be genderless and faceless. It just means ... well, allowing some space in society for non-binary folks.
I don't know why that concept is so hard for people. The way this is being discussed, one would think your rights were being stolen away and given to someone else.
-3 ( +5 / -8 )
Burning BushToday 10:26 am JST
The people who’ll be hurt the most will be girls who are forced to put up with men not only in their safe spaces but also on their sports teams.
Real, natural, normal human biology gender distinctions of man and woman are getting erased.
You never stand up for women, Burning Bush. But if you can use women to attack and insult transpeople, you are suddenly a knight in shining armor.
-7 ( +5 / -12 )
AntiquesavingToday 11:35 am JST
In Toronto ( and I found out other places also), the government had to outfit special mobile clinics to service the transgender/non binary community that refused to go to hospitals because they feel "uncomfortable" having to put down a gender on medical/admission forms.They were offended at having to chose or put down their biological facts.
Wrong. They feel uncomfortable putting their gender down because it outs them, and many medical staff are prejudiced towards transgender people. It's very difficult for transgender people to find medical care because a lot of doctors either just refuse to treat them, or else the doctor doesn't have the necessary expertise.
I don't understand if they want to ignore reality that their internal organs are not want they are then that is their problem, why must the government cater to their delusions.
They don't "ignore their internal organs" - see above.
Equality under the law does not mean every word, every action, etc...must be somehow neutral.
Um, actually, it does. Otherwise the law would be discriminatory.
-7 ( +5 / -12 )
SnowymountainhellMar. 26 07:38 am JST
You assume too much about other “People” that ‘may not fit Your little boxes’ @girl_in_tokyo 5:56am.
No, I do not try to fit people into boxes.
You’re the one being ‘exclusionary’ and ‘gatekeeping’. - That’s quite unfortunate and very disappointing for us.
What you seem to be saying is that you ought to be allowed to dictate to women and trasnpeople what words they do or do not find offensive towards women and transpeople.
I'm merely pointing out that the issues is more nuanced that you are making it out to be, and that it is not your business to tell a member of a minority how they are allowed to speak about themselves.
By the way: the word is “ally, not alley“ ... unless you’re continuing to throw jabs at ‘certain segments’ of LGBTQIA. If so, then it’s extremely hurtful.
I have never "thrown a jab" at LGBTQIA. Ever.
I'm bisexual and date women. I have a brother who is gay. I attend Pride every year. I'm not only a member of the community I'm also an advocate. Pointing out that you may not understand that there is much more nuance involved in language that you may be aware of is not akin to demeaning an entire group.
Again, no apology necessary, just awareness, mindfulness and more sensitivity for others, is all we ask.
This is like telling a disabled person to be more aware about the needs of the disabled. Can you be any more condescending?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
snowymountainhellToday 06:59 am JST
GLAAD officially published Nov. 17, 2017 that ‘guys’ was no longer acceptable as a ‘gender neutral’ term, especially in the workplace. You well know that ‘folks’ includes everyone in most social and work situations. “Team” is also acceptable when working conjointly with others on a project.
GLAAD is not the King of LGBTQIA.
The community - OUR community - is made up of individuals who have differing opinions on how and when gender-neural language should be used. It's much more nuanced than you are making it out to be.
And frankly, it's not your place to police the language that members of a community use to describe themselves when you're not even part of that community.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Bandit Today 06:10 pm JST
"The lesbian divorce rate is much higher than the divorce rate between men: in the same period on average 100 women and 45 men divorced per year (i.e., Lesbian divorce rate = 14%, Gay Male divorce rate = 7%).
2 ( +4 / -2 )
kohakuebisuMar. 25 02:06 pm JST
Nuance isn't really allowed in politics these days, but I consider myself a strong feminist but still think it is better for a parent (as things stand, effectively the mother) to stay at home and look after a baby rather than use full time childcare. Based on the welfare of the child alone, I think it is best for kids to go into all-day childcare like Japan's much later, at three or four. Society should create career paths that allow job changes, retraining, time off for child rearing or personal development, etc. etc. This can all be encouraged and enabled through the tax and welfare systems.
This feminist agrees with you.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Physiologically, it is true that men and women have their own strengths and weaknesses. You could argue that it might be more beneficial for humankind if men and women utilize their respective strengths to a mutual advantage. However, from a gender perspective, this is just a blanket generalization. While there are large individual differences between men and women generally, in the case of men, some men are not good at the things men are supposed to be good at and some are good at the things women are supposed to be good at. Conversely, the same applies for women. Although this might not apply in a primitive society where food and resources are scarce, my feeling is that modern society is most efficient when, rather than dwelling on collective strengths and weaknesses, individuals focus on what they are good at and concentrate on making an active contribution in that. In today’s post-war society where the ideal is that “All of the people shall be respected as individuals,” this might be too obvious to mention.
I have never seen this issue so very eloquently, succintly, and accurately expressed.
People should be able to be themselves and not forcibly be boxed into a role based on stereotypical gender expectations.
And guys, this includes making comments like "Japanese women want to marry a man who is well off" or "Why would women want to chain themselves to a desk like men must do."
Everyone wants financial stability - it's not a gendered issue. And while some women do want to marry and stay home with the kids, other women have personal ambitions and working hard to attain them isn't the domain of men only.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
snowymountainhellMar. 25 09:40 pm JST
Considering the topic @girl_in_tokyo 5:17pm, WE would think you were more of an activist Against harassment in the workplace yet, *you persist in using ‘hurtful and demeaning’ language that ‘suits only You’**. - *To quote Your comments directly:
I get that you think you're helping, being a good alley. But one thing that allies need to understand is that it's not their role to gatekeep - and this is especially the case when the person whose language they are trying to police is a member of the community they are attempting to gatekeep for, while the ally themselves is not.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
snowymountainhellToday 03:31 pm JS
Yet, *@girl_in_tokyo**, we hear from you ALL THE TIME, “I have a male friend who..., etc, etc”.*
'ALL THE TIME?' Really.
You mean to say that using people one knows as an example to clarify a concept is the exact same thing as trying to extrapolate subjective feelings to all people in a marginalized group as a tactic to justify discrimination against said marginalized group? Oh, Really
Still after the ‘final word‘? Nope. With respect to other L.G.B.T.Q.I.A’s and without Your ‘crass’ and cliche’ed comments, PEOPLE will remember the relevant issues of this article:
'crass’ and cliche’ed'?
Ceremonial ‘marriages’ that are ‘not legally binding’ are ineffectual to manage discrimination by businesses and governments. ‘Governments’ need to fix THIS problem. ‘Partnership certificates’ can only facilitate some contracts within a very small scope of a municipality yet, don’t provide ANY legal guarantees of inheritance rights, spousal ‘power of attorney’ for insurance and medical decisions, nor provision for custody of a partner's children, and other critical ‘family issues.
Finally, ANY type of ‘marriage’ is still, a choice.
I'm sorry, but this is just a word salad. I have NO idea what you're trying to say. Perhaps if you used conventional capitalization and punctuation, and used words according to their common usage, it would get your message across more clearly.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
snowymountainhellToday 03:47 pm JST
Yes... @girlin* Tokyo. *It’s a word You made up. - ”You know, guys, there IS such a thing as ‘hyperskepticim’.” -
All words are 'made up'.
And, stop using “*you guys***” *ALL the time. - The way You use it could** be sexist **and only serves to ‘give more power to masculinity’. Isn’t that what this ‘informative’ article, with its unidentifiable source of data, trying to teach *us?
Guys is used for women and men.
And frankly, I don't care if you don't like that I use it.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Dirk Mar. 24 11:12 pm JST
That's not what Ms Drew is trying to explain.
What she was trying to do was blame same-sex marriage on divorce rates by positing that getting married causes couples to break up.
She regrets converting her own civil partnership to a marriage. ‘We were much more relaxed as civil partners than as a married couple,’ she said. Getting married puts pressure on lesbians to adopt roles more typically associated with heterosexual couples. Etc.
SHE regrets - yes. So what? This is her subjective personal experience, and cannot be extrapolated to all or even a statistically significant number same-sex couples. What evidence does she have that this is a widespread phenomena?
And does this phenomena also effect heterosexual couples, who also feel pressured to take on traditional gender roles upon marrying, or who also might feel more pressure going from singlehood to being married?
Finally, what is her POINT? Is she trying to say that allowing same-sex marriage is a mistake? And if so, is allowing heterosexual marraige ALSO a mistake?
I hate to break it to you people, but there are really no significant differences between the dynamics of heterosexual marriages and the dynamics of same-sex marriages. We love the same, fight the same, and even fvck the same.
Heteros just can't seem get it through their heads that gay people are PEOPLE. Sheesh.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
80% of art scene workers in Japan harassed within last decade: survey
What percentage that is of artists in general, or of the total asked, we do not know. Only 80% of the replies received.
The answer is clearly that 80% of the respondents to the survey report being harassed.
You know, guys, there IS such a thing as hyperskepticim.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Burning BushMar. 23 07:08 am JST
Every murder is motivated by disregard and hate.
You really don't see the difference between someone killing in a moment of anger, someone killing during the course of comitting a crime, and murdering someone in cold blood solely because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation?
I have yet to see a murder that I wouldn't classify as a hate crime.
And if you come back at me some convoluted reasoning as to why this is not a hate crime, and how the punishment should be no different, then you'll just demonstrate to everyone here what kind of person you really are. So go ahead. I won't even reply. I'll just let your hateful comment sit here for everyone to take note of.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Dirk Today 06:45 pm JST
The founder of Britain’s first fertility clinic for same-sex couples, Nathalie Drew, believes the legalisation of gay marriage has resulted in a soaring divorce rate among lesbians.
Before same-sex marriage was legal, there was zero divorce among lesbians because they couldn't get married so quite obviously, after same-sex marriage was legalized, divorces became a thing that sometimes happens.
This whole thing is drivel.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
PaulToday 11:45 am JST
What happened to that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman? The purpose of which gives a child a stable growing up environment. Now marriage as a legal way to manage assets.
Welcome to the 2000s, where blatant discrimination is no long acceptable.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
The argument that LGBTQIA "don't need special protection" or that straight people do need them is purposely obtus. It's nothing but a faux misunderstanding of the ordinance just to give you the chance to express your disdain for LGBTQIA.
I guess since you can't talk to people like this in real life (because you know its unacceptable) you have to spew your garbage here.
Ya'all need a better hobby.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Mr KiplingToday 10:09 am JST
If its not shameful why all the hiding? If all the LGBT community came out and were honest the rest of the population would see that their coworkers and neighbors who were LGBT were nothing to be afraid of.
If people stopped insulting, discriminating against, firing, harassing, beating up, and even murdering us for being gay, maybe we would come out - did you ever think of that? Sheesh.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
StrangerlandToday 06:18 am JST
I didn't say finances, I said resources. I hope you don't score your relationships with a dollar value.
Great! Then we agree.
Nothing. But permanent doesn't mean it never ends, it means it's not temporary. Just like permanent residence in Japan doesn't mean you can't nor never will leave.
Well, why can't people marry just for a short time, just for fun? Just for kicks? Just 'cause weddings are a good excuse to party? Or just 'cause someone wants to wear a pretty dress, or get presents? And then divorce right after, LOL.
Oh, wait - actually, they can, can't they. I think it was Britney Spears who got married for 24 hours, wasn't it? Or was it Paris Hilton? Anyway - that's the funny part of this - there really are hardly any rules for what a marriage is, or what a married couple can or can't do; the only rules are about WHO can get married. And it seems we both agree that everyone should be able to get married.
As they wish.
Is that what you're thinking, too?
Suddenly, I'm starting to realize you reacted to my post, without actually reading what it said.
I read it, understood it, added to it, and really, it looks like we are mainly in agreement. Wow!! :)
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Burning BushToday 06:55 am JST
Does this mean a man like me can enter a woman's space and nobody is allowed to point out the fact that I'm a man?
No. This is aimed at not outing LGBTQIA. If you are not LGBTQIA, this has nothing to do with you and won't effect you in the slightest. Unless that is, you plan to out someone. Then it is aimed at you.
My question may seem absurd but it's an honest question about the new law.
I honestly don't see how this can be a sincere question. It seems like an obtuse and purposeful faux misunderstanding of the ordinance to just so you play devil's advocate.
But if you sincerely need education on the issue of outing, may I suggest organizations such as PFLAG, Stonewall.org, Human Rights Campaign, and GLAAD.
11 ( +19 / -8 )
StrangerlandToday 05:24 am JST
If they're willing to band their resources together, to move forward as a permanent unit with their interests etc financially intertwined, then why not? Why should 'love' or 'sexual interest' be required for two people to get the rights of partners? Who made up this silly rule? (hint: religion)
Just a few thoughts ...
Why should they have to bind their resources together? These days a lot of couples have separate finances.
Why should they be required to be a permanent unit? What is wrong with a short union, not meant to be until death? When you think about, it, expecting a relatiionship to last until one person is DEAD is rather grim.
Why should they live together? There are lots of long distance relationships these days, as well as couples who simply decide not to co-habitate.
In fact, why should they even be in love? Lots of married couples aren't, but stay together regardless. There are also people who married for other reasons, such an financial or emotional support, support in child raising, and their relationship is completely platonic and non-romantic.
Why not plural marriage, group marriage?
If marriage should be for everyone, then it should be for EVERYONE - no rules, regulations, no one from the outside dictating to the people how they should define their relationship, and no rules but their own.
IMO marriage is on its way to being obsolete. I'd be more than happy to see the institution fading away.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
I see the exact same ridiculous arguments here that were made in the US in 2015 when same-sex marriage was legalised.
Those arguments were devoid of logic then, and they’re still devoid of logic now.
Atheists get married.
Couples who have no intention of having children get married.
Infertile couples get married.
Same-sex couple can and do have children.
Your personal view of gods and religion have nothing to do with anyone but yourself, and can’t be legally foisted on other people.
If you’re in favor of forcing others to obey your religious beliefs via the law that’s called a “theocracy.” Examples include Saudi Arabia and Iran. Maybe you’d be more comfortable living there.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It’s perfectly normal.
Studies have shown that the children of same-sex parents are well-adjusted and there’s no discernible difference between same-sex and opposite-sex parents.
Sane sex couples should be able to get legally married because it’s the right thing to do.
And that’s that.
5 ( +7 / -2 )